Shock Value

Professor Adrienne Stoner's presentation on her study abroad research reminded me of past moves in my life.  

As a doctoral candidate, Adrienne focused her research on the correlation between the study abroad experience and the consumption of new media.  The study abroad experience can provide a new perspective and also give participants more of an edge in the job search.  However, while many embrace the experience, many get homesick and turn their cell phones -equipped with Facebook, Twitter, email, etc. that ties them back to their roots at home.

As Adrienne discussed the idea of culture shock and the value it would add to her study, I thought about the bout of culture shock I experience.  I didn't travel to a foreign country or move that far away, but it was almost as if I was in another world.  After growing up in the city of Chicago, my parents moved us to Lincoln, IL so my dad could open his own business.  Needless to say, there is a huge difference between the two.

Gone were the skyscrapers, annoying yet calming sounds of traffic and sirens, and people swiftly walking past each other.  Lincoln was as small town, Andy Griffith show as you could get.  At first, it was exciting to explore, but after 2 weeks, I wanted to get in the car and drive straight back.  I relied heavily on the new media of the time which was AOL Instant Messenger and Myspace.  However, while this kept me in tune with something I couldn't really be a part of anymore, it kept me from embracing what Lincoln had to offer, no matter how little it was.  While being a part of "cyber-Chicago" was enough to hold me over until the next day, I still woke up to realize that I was still in Lincoln and couldn't live virtually forever.

After Professor Stoner discussed how the cycle of culture shock, I kind of understood both sides of the equation.  New media should be used, but to share your experience with those who aren't there.  When I see pictures or videos from others' travels that they post instantly, I get excited to want to go myself.  People who are homesick seem to "hide" the experience rather than show it off.  I also understand why some people may not want to have any access at all.  The vulnerability that comes with traveling to a new place, foreign country or not, adds to the excitement.  Losing yourself in anything; travel, music, film, seems to immediately impact a person -for better or worse.

I believe that use of new media while studying abroad would affect a person's personal growth.  Who knows if I could have learned something new while living in Lincoln, I was too wrapped up in trying to remain a Chicagoan.  And while I think the way a person uses new media reflects their growth as a person, I don't think homesickness should be an excuse to not submerge oneself in a new place.

Want a job? Start caring about Politics

Proposing the question, "What are you worried about?" Professor Rojecki discusses finding a job after college and how political choices, or lack thereof, affect our lives as students.  The idea that young Americans allow these dysfunctional political woes to take over reinforces the idea that change can't happen unless you want it to.  As he tells the students to take control, he reflects the idea that we elect the politicians ourselves, therefore it's our fault.

Politics are usually framed by younger people as "boring" and media as "dishonest."  Both of these have negative connotation, which leads people to not care.  If politics and politicians are framed with such negativity, the people who aren't as involved or aware will adopt these frames and their own opinions.  From there, the morals and proposed solutions to these political, and ultimately social, woes can be  skewed from what a person actually wants to what he or she thinks they want.

As a society, Americans deciding to forgo jobs then go to other countries.  Professor Rojecki seemed to imply that buying products that are not made in the US are the key cause of this issue, also implying that electing politicians that are pro-American made will supply more jobs.  Yet, these issues of globalization can be applied to ethics as well.  Connecting this lecture to class, globalization can feed into insecurity as well as creating issues.

Challenging  political ideals ethically, if the majority of people elect a politician who will do the best for them, who's ultimately getting left out?  If politicians are supposed to represent a country and the views of its people globally, but don't -is this ethical?  The idea of electing a politician is supposed to be ethically ends-based.  After let's say a president is elected, we as a country are supposed to feel like he (or she) has good motives and will lead our country to the right conclusions.

Professor Rojecki discusses the failures of the Bush administration and how those failures parlayed into the radical ideals of the Tea Party.  If we're following ends-based ethics by definition, neither the Bush administration or the Tea Party are ethical entities.  In his presentation, Rojecki provides information that 2.9 million jobs were lost during the 2000s (the beginning of the Bush era) leading Americans to become pessimistic about the future.  Yet, while the decisions made during this era were unethical by definition, Rojecki portrays the image that it's not 100% the politician's fault, but society's as well.

I agree that people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to complain when politicians make horrible decisions.  At the same time, I think that claiming to represent the American people as a whole and then not doing so is wrong.  The Tea Party exemplifies an extreme that many desperate, and ill-informed, people may flock to, however that will ultimately fail, too.  I think that Professor Rojecki's call to youth culture to take control and elect a politician that will help cement a more positive future for our generation is the only way to really start a change.

What if Women want to study Computer Science, and What if They Don't?

When thinking of technology, the idea of discrimination doesn't quickly come to mind.  "The Incredible Shrinking Pipeline" discusses the decreasing presence of women in the computer science workforce.  While only 2% of men and less than 1% of women, in 2008 according to facts presented in the lecture, are even deciding to make computer science part of their careers, it is important to realize that this outlet is a crucial part of the future.  More specifically, it appears that success in computer science is geared directly towards men than women.

This idea that women are less capable of working successfully within computer sciences is explicitly discriminatory.  Whether it's products being made or jobs held, women are considered less knowledgeable and less capable to adapt than men.  Looking deeper into this story, I found an article published in Harvard University's Crimson publication.  In April of this year, Crimson reporter Irene Chen wrote that "of the 51 sophomores who declared computer science this year, 21 were women."  She adds that, though this is an increase, women don't have "role models" in the field -which could be a reason why they change their minds.  However, when looking at this issue from an opposite perspective, I think, If women aren't interested in compute r science, should society or lack of female presence force them to become interested?

Granted, most computer programming and software developers are men and their influence is undeniable.  Many popular video games portray women as sexy, with unrealistically curvaceous bodies dressed in next-to-nothing.  Even a strong, female character like Lara Croft is sexualized by a larger bust,  a midriff exposing t-shirt, and short shorts.   However, while Croft may be more of a badass than the next male hero, the character's back story includes sexual assault, playing into the theory that women are vulnerable and men can just be evil.

If a game is centered around a woman, it seems to be dumbed down and set in some type of gender specific atmosphere.  Professor Meraz discusses the game Diner Dash, in which the lone, female character is a waitress, responsible for taking orders, serving, and cleaning up.  Clearly, this game was not thought up by a woman.  Also, the objective of playing is simple enough for a woman to understand, therefore re-establishing the fact that the complex nature of computer science is wasted on women.

Gender argument aside, however -why should women want to study something if they're not interested?  The key point in each article I've read and Professor Meraz's lecture seems to be that women shy away from studying computer science because they feel patronized in class.  But I'm a firm believer in passion conquering all, no matter what obstacles stand in one's way.  So, if  there are a few women who are serious and passionate about computer science, shouldn't they succeed above the women who are studying it just to get a degree?  If the solution seems to be more women in computer science to be role models and inspirations for others, shouldn't those women be the select few that are truly committed?

In class, we talked about features of communication like framing, salience, and culture.  So far, computer sciences have been framed by what men excel at, therefore selling products that men like and want to see more of.  To really get to the core of this topic, so many things have to be looked at.  How many women are actually avid gamers or avidly buying and using any type of computer software other than Microsoft Office products.  If the results are majority male, should women really be that concerned?

Our culture has already framed these roles anyway.  Male gamers or computer scientists have been culturally framed as "lazy" or "nerdy."  Female gamers are framed as "one of the guys" or a "guy's girl" -which aren't necessarily bad things.  As a woman, I'd rather develop something more salient anyway.  There's not really an abundance of meaningful information behind something like Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty -and if there is, I think it's fair to assume that many gamers aren't taking that information to heart. 

Regardless of what a woman or man wants to study, people should be made to feel comfortable and competent in any field of study.  Also, while this type of discrimination is wrong, it shouldn't be forced upon women to make them feel like they should want to become a part of the female software programmer minority.